The probability of success is 0.

the biggest reason is that there is a competing endeavor, which also started searching from 0.
So basically you are searching through the exact same addresses that LBC (Large Bitcoin Collider) has already gone through. And you are a lot slower too.
Here is a link: https://lbc.cryptoguru.org/about

Sounds like a fun project  I wont discourage you more.

What is a "bottom signature"?

If you are talking about how long a bitcoin address has been kept untouched, that is easy to check from http://blockchain.info From there you can see when the first and last transactions were made...

Starmyc released his program that can do just that, but you need to have a full node.

Have you guys read this topic at all?
Starmyc has just posted (on 4th of April) a link to a file with a list of all addresses with balances from the same day.
And that is exactly what you are asking.

Are you seriously saying that 6 days old info is not recent enough?

If you are not generating the list yourself, you are very lucky if you get a list that is from the same YEAR.
So be grateful and give merit to him, if you download

In my country you will get in trouble with the police if you kill or injure a burglar.

It is crazy. You can't legally defend yourself. And if you do, maybe it is best NOT to call a police 

I recently read about a case, where a burglar had come to a house, and slipped on the slippery pathway and injured himself. In that case the owner of the house had to pay the burglar for his injuries.
(There is a law, that requires house owners to keep roads non-slippery)

Thanks for the new list

Sad to hear, that you are planning to stop making new ones. Hope it is not the data upload costs that affect  your decision.

For me it would be enough to get list of addresses containing 1BTC or more. That list is about 30Mb in size. And even those would not need to be updated very often. Maybe once in 4 to 6 months.  
But that is just me.

And as you have published your source code, others can keep doing  the same

I am probably going to install your program to be able to do it myself, but for that I will need a full node, and that is a bit complicated with my hardware currently...
 
  

I think we will newer get rid of P2PKH legacy addresses. The network always has to be able to make transactions from them, because there will always be old addresses that have been made when the only choice was P2PKH.
Sometimes people find their OLD private keys. It would be strange if someone had "stolen" their money by disabling support for old addresses...

Also for security minded persons, legacy addresses may be better.  They have been around longer, and haven't been cracked.
On the other hand, there are interesting articles about the security of SegWit addresses. (From the time when SegWit was coming.) If SegWit support is removed, then all coins in SegWit addresses would be "anyone can spend" -coins. And that would literally mean that anyone can spend those coins!

For big amounts of BTC I will always prefer P2PKH addresses. For smaller sums, the spending wallet, SegWit wins.

As the link says, the BIG problem with quantum computers is that there are bitcoins worth more than  $10.000.000.000 in addresses, whose public key has been published. If someone was able to steal all those coins, he could destroy bitcoin by selling all of them at the same time.

We do expose the public key when we make a transaction, but usually the whole address is emptied at the same time, so the public key will be useless after the transaction is completed.

Your coins are safe, if you just keep them in addresses with no spend action, but it seems impossible to protect those old coins. Theymos suggested a solution once, but he did not get support to his idea...


I do not believe quantum computers will ever become THAT fast. That would mean the attacker would have to solve the ECDSA problem in less than 5 minutes!  
And if that would ever become possible, it would be easy to just somehow prevent the network from accepting double spends...
Also. Do you really think the owner of a quantum computer would bother to steal those small everyday transactions, when he could just empty some addresses containing about 100000BTC each, there are several of those, that have published their pulic key....

All you need for receiving payments is a bitcoin address.
You can generate addresses eg. in here: https://www.bitaddress.org
Though, it is advisable to download the bittaddress to your own machine and generate the addresses offline to reduce risk of anyone getting a copy of them.

IF you need to generate a different address for each customer, then you should install some wallet or program that can handle it. Also you need a wallet program to be able to spend the coins you have received...

Edit: just noticed that you are an old member, so you know all that I just wrote. Maybe I misunderstood your question. Sorry

Yes you can. The only caveat is that if the fees go up, your (lower fee) transaction might not be included in a block ... or it could take a loooong time. You might have to contact a miner and pay him to include your transaction.

I read about one guy, who had an old signed transaction with a very low fee and he was having problems trying to get it confirmed in December 2017, when fees were very high.... 
He did succeed in the end 

180k/21000k= 0.8% not 8%

I am a little confused.
If I understood correctly you are NOT in the middle of a nasty divorce, which is THE moment when your investments would probably have to be divided 50/50 with your wife.

Doesn't quite add up. IF you give her 50% now and she spends her share, and THEN you divorce and you have to split everything AGAIN 50/50. Not fair, and I do not think it works like that.

Another scenario: You give her half now, and she spends her share, and then she asks for 50% again, because it is her "right". What then? do you have to give her 50% of your remaining investments, which she spends AGAIN. And the same can repeat forever, until neither of you have any money left  

That is not how marriage and community property laws work. (I am no expert in how things work in California but we have a similar law.)

You own your own money, even if you are married. Hell. if you want, you could rent a jumbo jet and fly to a holiday, and thus spend all your money, and she could not do anything about it. Or, yes,  she could divorce you and split her savings with you, because you would not have anything left at that point...

Having said that. She could be right. If you have multiplied your investment, maybe it is a good idea to take some money back. Maybe sell enough to cover your initial investment. Then there is no risk of losing your initial investment, and it would be much easier to follow the swings of the market.

Were you trying to find weaknesses in the early addresses 

Good to know he used a good random number generator from the start.

Some later wallets have not been as well designed. As there have been some that used weaker RNG:s

In the article it says that they are using temporary QR tattoos. Changing them is not a problem.

But it is always great to see new and innovative ways to use Bitcoin. There are dangers too. When you are doing the payment with your phone, someone could take your phone and empty your wallet.....

No-one has said what is the minimum amount of inputs that would benefit from consolidating inputs?

LoyceV mentioned that he consolidated 3 inputs.

Is it necessary to consolidate 2 inputs? How about 3 or 4?

How much savings would that make, if the fees go back to high levels?

First off. Yes there are viruses that are capable of doing as you described. Infecting the USB-stick and stealing your private key from your offline computer.

However. It is quite unlikely you would have one of those.

The best solution is transferring the unsigned (and signed) transaction with a webcam. This can be easily done with the help of QR-codes. for example in linux there is a handy program called qrencode, that can create qr-codes from any text...

Python is the best. There are many easy to use libraries for python, that do all the hard stuff easily.

And I say this even though I have many years of experience in coding C++ and muh less in python.

He was speaking of this Electrum vulnerability that was found and corrected:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2721388.0

I would also like to use longer seeds, but currently it seems wiser to use the standard seed lenght

I cant understand why they insist in keeping the security in 128bits and not one bit more. After all your seed is used for generating many addresses. It would be better to make it more secure than one single address.

Having said that. 128 bits should be more than enough for now.

It is impossible to know if a bitcoin address is made using a compressed or uncompressed public key. Every bitcoin address has many compressed and uncompressed public keys that will generate that address.
There are 2^160 possible addresses and 2^256 public keys, which makes about 2^96 different keys for each address

But you can make an educated guess based on the date when the address was created. During the last 3-4 years >99% of generated addresses would use compressed public keys. And the oldest ones would probably use uncompressed keys.

The only way to be certain is if there is a spend action from that address. then you can look at the published public key and you will know if it is compressed or not.

The hardest part in making a light wallet is that it needs to get the needed info of current blockchain from somewhere. Electrum solves this by having servers that maintain a copy of the full blockchain

Here is some info of how to make the unsigned transaction and signing it.
http://www.righto.com/2014/02/bitcoins-hard-way-using-raw-bitcoin.html

for generating QR-codes you can use qrencode. It is a simple interface for generating QR-codes.

Excellent! Thank you. 
I have been looking for that information for some time now. I even tried some old blockchain parser, which could not do the job.

I checked the numbers against the ones I have, and the first 36288 extraNonce values are the same than the ones I had